Man charged in child pornography case

Prosecutors charged a man with possession of child pornography after authorities said they found sexually explicit images on his phone while he was in jail, according to court records.

David Ricky Steen, 50, was charged with the third-degree felony Wednesday. On May 1, Steen had pictures of a child engaging in sexual contact, a criminal complaint said.

Steen was in Potter County custody and his cell phone was placed in the property room, according to court records. A witness picked up the phone at the jail and found pictures believed to be child porn, the complaint said. Authorities got a search warrant to review the images and confirmed the images were pornographic, the complaint said.

Potter County Chief Deputy Roger Short said Steen was in jail from May 12 to June 4 on a parole violation, and the matter is an ongoing investigation.

State records show Steen served more than two years in prison after he was convicted of theft of property less than $1,500. He was placed on parole in August 2009 and was taken to a parole facility in Pampa following his jail stint, prison records show.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm wondering how this works, a deputy goes into a POS' phone and finds the pics, then Potter Co. S.O. gets the warrant to look at his phone and pics again? I hope there's more to this story because something doesn't sound right. I'm wondering how that doesn't violate his constitutional rights. I hope I'm missing something here because I would hate to see him get away with this due to poor police work by the deputy and Potter Co.

This happened May 1st, was that this year? But thanks anyway AGN for keeping me abreast of the NEWS.

But I would sure like to know how the charge came about. Did the deputy look first and then go get a warrant or did they just charge the man ignoring his rights to privacy?
Somebody’s got some splainin to do. But by this time the case was probably thrown out.

There are a multitude of legal reasons this deputy could have been initially looking at the phone. To try and form an opinion on whether or not it was a constitutional search based on the information presented in this article is impossible.

I am sorry, but with all this talk about our rights being taken away with the cell phone oridance, then it seems like most people are ok with the theory the police just opened his phone and searched it, something is wrong with this town. I mean, I am glad they got him, I have no idea why they were searching the phone, maybe they did have a warrant--story doesn't say but many people have fought and died to protect our right against illegal search and seizure.

My understanding is that they can look through your phone for evidence incidental to the crime that you were arrested for without a warrant. This is why people are advised to password protect their phones I think.

The SCOTUS has ruled that warrantless searches are vaild if it is done to insure the officer is protected, for purposes of inventory, if it is incident to arrest and if the evidence could have been ineveitably discovered among other reasons.

I'm pretty sure that in today's world the police can and will search a person's phone for evidence. You are an idiot if you leave incriminating data on your phone. If they want to go in and get your phone records that is another story.

Also you are a complete piece of .... if you produce, distribute, or possess child porn.

does people like him don't have a wife? or children or relatives? I wonder how they feel about having him as a family member who enjoys watching CHILDREN having sex?!?!? wtf is going on with this world?

Firstly, that witness didn't have the proper authority to touch the phone unless it was owned by them, he still had that right but from what I understand about knowing people on parole personally, once you are put on either probation or parole you become "property of the state",. you loose most rights to privacy,in other words they practically own you. If an officer believed they had the slightest of a reasonable suspicion a warrant could be easily issued by the judge because it's a "privileged at-home sentence" IE : they are still serving time even though they are in the population. He gave up his rights when he was arrested for the first charge that put him on the parole. The guidelines are the same for those outside or inside the prison : NO pornography what-so-ever, be it books, or any media that pertains it, no drugs, alcohol, etc. Those were explained to him in the sentencing then re-explained again by the parole officer.

As for the pictures, you honestly think that child wanted that done to them and have pictures taken of the molestation to get circulated on the internet or worse yet, if those pics were taken by that same phone they were found on? if they weren't considered child pornography but instead legitimate pictures then he would have never been charged for it. Having a child myself that was sexually abused when she was young gives me no remorse for anyone who hurts a child in that way or anyone who gets aroused by the site of it and apparently that was what was found on the phone so I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him. I hope his sentence is a long one like those involved in my daughters case.